Translate this blog in your favourable language

Friday, June 26, 2015

THE POLITICAL ECONOMY OF A WORLD WITHOUT WORK AND POLITICAL ECONOMY OF DEVELOPMENT/UNDERDEVELOPMENT..

Daniel
W. Drezner is a professor of international politics at the Fletcher School of
Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University and a regular contributor to Post Everything.

I
had sufficient amounts of leisure time to read Derek Thompson’s long read in
the Atlantic about “A
World Without Work” — which I suppose helps to partially validate
Thompson’s hypothesis. The article suggests that John
Maynard Keynes’s prediction made in 1930 that in the span of a
century, “the economic problem may be solved, or be at least within
sight of solution, within a hundred years.”

Keynes
elaborated on the effect this could have:

It
is startling because — if, instead of looking into the future, we look into the
past — we find that the economic problem, the struggle for subsistence, always
has been hitherto the primary, most pressing problem of the human race-not only
of the human race, but of the whole of the biological kingdom from the
beginnings of life in its most primitive forms.

Thus
we have been expressly evolved by nature-with all our impulses and deepest
instincts-for the purpose of solving the economic problem. If the economic
problem is solved, mankind will be deprived of its traditional purpose.

What
may be looming is something different: an era of technological unemployment, in
which computer scientists and software engineers essentially invent us out of
work, and the total number of jobs declines steadily and permanently….

What does the “end of work” mean, exactly? It does not mean the imminence
of total unemployment, nor is the United States remotely likely to face, say,
30 or 50 percent unemployment within the next decade. Rather, technology could
exert a slow but continual downward pressure on the value and availability of
work—that is, on wages and on the share of prime-age workers with full-time
jobs. Eventually, by degrees, that could create a new normal, where the
expectation that work will be a central feature of adult life dissipates for a
significant portion of society.

Thompson
goes on to sketch three response strategies to these kinds of shifts —
expanding consumption, communal creativity and contingent work arrangements.

Thompson
quotes serious economists like Lawrence Katz and Larry Summers offering
validity to the combined effects of automation and the
sharing economy on the traditional employment paradigm. The essay is
definitely worth a close read.

That
said, the political economy person in me keeps mulling over the following three
questions:

1. What happens to the
distribution of benefits?

As
Thompson notes, it’s becoming much cheaper to make things. But this doesn’t
mean that consumers won’t have to pay for them. And if the employment paradigm breaks down, where does the income come from? The
sharing economy, for example, increases the rewards to owners of capital —
exacerbating an ongoing trend toward rewarding owners of capital over labor.
Thompson references “post-wage arrangements” and “universal basic
income,” but these kinds of public policies require things like, you know,
political support. And I can see upending the custom of “work-for-income” as
politically problematic. So we wind up win a world posited by the likes of Marx
and Mill — one in which the science of production has been settled, but the
distribution of consumption has not.

2. What does the international relations
of a world without work look like?

Thompson
writes about the United States — or the developed world -— like it’s
hermetically sealed. But I’m betting that a “world without work” paradigm would
have calamitous effects on emerging markets. Would increasing gaps in affluence
between post-work and ongoing-work societies play out in the form of violent
conflict? And if it did, would post-work societies rely on autonomous weapons
to defend themselves against the have-nots of the developing world? And how
would that work out for everyone?

3. What would the reactionary
political movement to a world without work look like?

It’s
worth remembering that this should all be good news. Scarcity is easing as a
problem, people can find their social purpose in non-economic pursuits, and so
forth. But the bias in Thompson’s article is that the post-work generation
embraces artisan crafts as the New New Thing. I can think of a lot of darker
ideologies that this kind of creative destruction can foster — particularly if
income inequality persists. Which is why I can’t shake the feeling that, as
happy as we should be about this possibility, it’s far from an unalloyed good.

In
this article we have tried to answer to the question ‘why some economies are developed and other

economies
are underdeveloped?’ For this, we have enacted an explanation which is inspired
on the ideasof Dependence Theory authors and which is based on three premises:
both phenomena have commoncauses; both phenomena have opposite and symmetric
causes; and both phenomena are the result ofhistoric process which arrive to
ours days.

Then we have identified like
underdevelopment causes: the colonial exploitation;
the trade exploitation;the financial exploitation; the plenty curse; the
heritage dual social structure; the no-permanentpresence of Social Rule of Law;
and the global apartheid. And the development causes will be: the
colonialexploitation; the trade exploitation; the financial exploitation; the
scant resources distribution; the pluralsocial structure; the permanent
presence of Social Rule of Law; and the global apartheid.

ISI H: NEWS AND ENTERTAINMENT

Latest Movie trailers

Maneno ya kufikiri

1. A deep, tender, ineffable feeling of affection and solicitude toward a person, such as that arising from kinship, recognition of attractive qualities, or a sense of underlying oneness.
2. A feeling of intense desire and attraction toward a person with whom one is disposed to make a pair; the emotion of sex and romance.
3.
a. Sexual passion.
b. Sexual intercourse.
c. A love affair.
4. An intense emotional attachment, as for a pet or treasured object.
5. A person who is the object of deep or intense affection or attraction; beloved. Often used as a term of endearment.
6. An expression of one's affection: Send him my love.
7.
a. A strong predilection or enthusiasm: a love of language.
b. The object of such an enthusiasm: The outdoors is her greatest love.
8. Love Mythology Eros or Cupid.
9. often Love Christianity Charity.
10. Sports A zero score in tennis.
v. loved, loving, loves
1. To have a deep, tender, ineffable feeling of affection and solicitude toward (a person): We love our parents. I love my friends.
2. To have a feeling of intense desire and attraction toward (a person).
3. To have an intense emotional attachment to: loves his house.
4.
a. To embrace or caress.
b. To have sexual intercourse with.
5. To like or desire enthusiastically: loves swimming.
6. Theology To have charity for.
7. To thrive on; need: The cactus loves hot, dry air.

Follow me by Email

Blogger Archive Calendar

Search This Blog

There was an error in this gadget

Wikipedia

Search results

My pager view

VICKY KAMATA BLOG.

Live feed

Steven Mruma Friends Quote,

affiliate marketing A real friend is one who walks in when the rest of the world walk out. Thick and thin, tall and small, fast and slow. Tell me who is always there for you. I am sure you know. Your best friend, of course, don’t let him or her go.. But friendship is precious, not only in the shade, but in the sunshine of life, and thanks to a benevolent arrangement the greater part of life is sunshine. .So you must remember to value your friend as i value you as my friends of my life and you can stand with me when the world go against me.... thanks for being my friend. welcome and STAY BLESSED..... ONE LOVE...